Differences between B744 and A340

[Sir Donald]

Appart from the obvious external differences, what other adavntages/disadvantages has one got over the other.
Why do some airlines operate both types and on the same route?
Just doing some research and will appreciate any help.
Regards,
The Don!

[PlaneTruth]

"Why do some airlines operate both types and on the same route?"

Because by having both in your stable, you stand a better chance of getting the best price from the manufacturer when it comes time for the next order!

PT

[jtr]

Adv/Dis..

-400 has about 140 odd more seats in a 3 class config
-400 can carry more cargo
340 is a more fuel efficient $/seat/km
340 is cheap cheap
340 has commonality with other in the stable 330/320
340 has a teensy weensy more range
340 is easier to fly ( the lure gently floats down and touches the water :E )

"Why do some airlines operate both types and on the same route?"

Flexibility- high season low season... because they dont have spare a/c laying around and do the best with what they have... satisfy known demand... freight considerations... etc etc. There are lots of reasons.:

[used2flyboeing]

+ B747 is easier on engines - its not as underpowered ( will trade fuel economy for extended engine life anyday )

+ B747 is a faster bird - easier on schedules & time make ups when required

+ B747 more cargo volume & gross weight

+ A340 Cheap - AIRBUS OR Boeing ( leasing - aircraft trading ) will give you one for a song

+ A340 - Quieter ( they use double insulation blankets )

+ A340 FBW

- A340 - less comfortable / less preferred by business passengers - will not take the new full flat sleeper 1st & business class seats ( except for the first row in business class )

-A340 - crew rest in the cargo hold ( cold, fumes, noise, not certified for takeoff & landing )

-A340 - Poor air conditioning - cattle class always cold - note Galleys in AIRBUS aircrafts always use heated floors..

-A340 - Very complex landing gear - heavy, less reliable

-A340 - 100,200,300 - poor economics due to poor aerodynamic design

[BahrainLad]

- A340 - less comfortable / less preferred by business passengers - will not take the new full flat sleeper 1st & business class seats ( except for the first row in business class )

From a passenger p.o.v, who has flown extensively in all classes on 777/747/330/340, erm, bollocks!

- Passengers much prefer the 2-2-2 biz class arrangement found in the A330/340 than the 2-3-2 in the 747/777.

- Flat beds? Go and have a look at a Qatari A330 or a low-density config Cathay A330. F class have full sleeper suites, business flat beds.


Personally, 1A on an A340 is the quietest, smoothest, most comfortable place in the sky.


As for the 747 being easier on engines: dubious claim. Most A340 takeoffs are done on the FLX setting (which can appear sluggish), which is specifically designed to reduce engine wear.

And, I believe the A340 (even the 300) can carry more containerised (LD3) cargo than the 747.


<But why are we arguing about this anyway. The 747 are no-way direct competitors! The 747 doesn't have a competitor in the current Airbus line up.......the 343 competes with the 772ER!).

[jtr]

Most A340 takeoffs are done on the FLX setting (which can appear sluggish), which is specifically designed to reduce engine wear.

You will get a derated T/O out of a -400 for a lot longer than a FLX out of a 340 for MTOW as the T goes up.

For MTOW it is rare to see a FLX on a 340 packs on T/O

[MarkD]

But why are we arguing about this anyway. The 747 are no-way direct competitors! The 747 doesn't have a competitor in the current Airbus line up

Perhaps a comparison with the 346 is fairer, given that pax numbers and engine classes are nearer...

Perhaps a VS person who has flown 744 and 346 could comment?

[AhhhVC813]

Jtr, why you would want to T/O with packs on and being supplied by the engines is a mystery. If you do it'll cost you 17500kgs off the TOW. Thus airlines either go packs off or supplied by the APU, thus there is no penalty. It is very rare even at MTOW that a flex T/O is not performed, and that is likely only in hot and or hot/high conditions where the engines flat rating is exceeded.
Probably true that you will get a derate on a -400 to a higher temp than a flex on a -300, but as MarkD has pointed out, the -600 is nearer to a competitor, and I believe you will find the comparisons here a little more hazy.

[N1 and ITT]

"-A340 - 100,200,300 - poor economics due to poor aerodynamic design"

Just to clarify for a listener in the audience:

I heard from several 330/340 drivers that aerdynamically Airbus has the lead by far over Boeing... Compare the initial flight levels they get going from EU to the US e.g. Ok, they might do .78M instead of .82 or 84, but this has nothing to do with "poor economics", right?

And I think the French are very well known for top-aerodynamics. Just compare the wing of a G4 and a Falcon.

Curious about any replies...

N1 and ITT

[Sheep Guts]

Ok what about 4 REAL ENGINES as opposed to 4 Hair Dryers.......;)

And visually the Wing looks much nicer on a Boeing. And from the many pax flights Ive had and some feedback from Pilots Who have flown both , tend to agree the Boeing rides the bumps better than a Bus......;)

[AhhhVC813]

The wings of Airbus products are in the main British designed and built, by BAE Systems. They are very efficient, of that there is no doubt. But then again most wings regardless of who builds them nowadays fall into that category.